Prince Philip’s car crash illustrates how the rest of us pay for the recklessness of the privileged

If Theresa May calls another election, prepare for a ‘short and sharp’ manifesto

Casual ageism is the last acceptable form of discrimination

Imagine how much one could get done if we all worked a four-day week

It’s a bitter pill, but women are used to having their reproductive health trivialised

The i newsletter

News for free thinkers

Email address:

“For those who don’t stretch to a private jet, I can announce a new railcard, for those aged 26-30,” said the Chancellor in November’s Budget, “Giving 4.5m more young people a third off their rail fares.”

But six months on the so-called “millennial railcard” is proving about as elusive to a 28-year-old as luxury air travel. Only 10,000 of the 4.5 million who are meant to be eligible were allowed one on the day of the “national” launch. Little wonder that the website launching them crashed.

My reason for bringing this up is not just that I am one of the millions to miss out, but that the incident reveals much about the row currently going on in government over spending. The reason the 26-30 railcard resembles a mythical artefact rather than a travel ticket is that there is no consensus on how it should be funded.

Why the delay?

“No-one wants to pay for it,” explains a Treasury source. When it was announced, the government hoped it would be a cost-neutral policy on the premise that extra passengers generate extra revenue. Network Rail aren’t so sure, so it is being slowly trialled – and in the short term the Treasury don’t want to be landed with a bill while everything is worked out. “It would set a bad precedent,” explains one Treasury insider.

The trouble is, this fits into a pattern. The government is conflicted on whether it should save or splurge – a tussle between big state or small state.

On one side of the party are the fiscal hawks, who in the Cabinet are represented by the likes of Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond and Liz Truss. They go by the mantra that the Tories should be reducing costs, not adding to them – leave that to Labour.

This strand of thinking was put to the test when Labour announced its own version of the policy: a bus pass for the under 25s. Tory vice chairman James Cleverly took to Twitter to suggest it was patronising – “when it comes to elections Labour think you’re an adult at 16, when it comes to bus travel you’re not an adult until 25”. The Conservative MP seemed unaware of his party’s own rail policy.

On the other side are the big spenders. Conservatives joke that Theresa May has always been more Miliband than Thatcherite on the economy. She is joined by Jeremy Hunt, at least when it comes to his own department, where he wants to see a great deal more spending.

‘Why should the Tories have to be the responsible ones?’

In the middle of the two sides are those who are unsure. Michael Gove “changes his opinion on the economy all the time” and “loves stirring the pot”, according to a Cabinet colleague. Others are tired of being good for little gain. When Patrick McLoughlin was in Cabinet, he made the point that the Conservatives often clean up the economy and make difficult decisions only for Labour to come in and reap the benefits – providing milk and honey for five years. Why should the Tories have to be the responsible ones?

When will the splits be resolved?

In the next few months these different arguments will come to a head. Number 10’s current approach to confronting difficult decisions, and with no majority, is to delay them. This means that there are several big spending reviews underway – on defence, health and education.

The IFS puts the current tax burden at its highest level in 30 years. If May is going to meet the spending recommendations for her various departments, a decision is beckoning. Should the Tories raise taxes, make more cuts, borrow or sit and hope the economy will grow?

As dry as it may seem, the decision will have a big impact on the next elections. Do the Conservatives want to pitch themselves as the party of freedom, deficit reduction and low tax or do they want to compete with Labour and splurge on public services?

If they go for the former, they can attack Corbyn for irresponsible spending – but they also risk a backlash from voters who are tired of austerity. If they go for the latter, gone goes the promise of a long term economic plan and in comes a Corbyn-lite pitch for public services.

Whatever path May treads, the risk of getting it wrong are a lot greater than a bunch of millennials missing out on discount travel.

Prince Philip’s car crash illustrates how the rest of us pay for the recklessness of the privileged

If Theresa May calls another election, prepare for a ‘short and sharp’ manifesto

Casual ageism is the last acceptable form of discrimination

Imagine how much one could get done if we all worked a four-day week

It’s a bitter pill, but women are used to having their reproductive health trivialised

The i's Essential Daily Briefing

We know that sometimes it’s easier for us to come to you with the news. That's why our new email newsletter will deliver a mobile-friendly snapshot of inews.co.uk to your inbox every morning, from Monday to Saturday.

This will feature the stories you need to know, as well as a curated selection of the best reads from across the site. Of course, you can easily opt out at any time, but we're confident that you won't.

Oliver Duff, Editor

By entering your email address and clicking on the sign up button below, you are agreeing to receive the latest daily news, news features and service updates from the i via email. You can unsubscribe at any time and we will not pass on your information.